Week 3: Communication, Transparency & Participation

I should probably preface this blog with the admission that before this week, I'd never really examined whitehouse.gov before. So I have no yardstick with which to measure how it has changed with the new administration. That said, off we go...

Communication

At first blush, listing communication as a key priority seems a bit obvious for a government website; after all, what other function would we expect it to perform? (Entertainment perhaps?) And, really, is the site likely to provide any sort of communication that we can't get just as quickly and perhaps more clearly from any reputable news outlet? But as I examined the concept of communication and its role in any website, I had a couple of thoughts. 

1. If whitehouse.gov were able to establish itself as a trustworthy, timely communicator -- if it even became a preferred source of government-related information for the news-hungry American -- imagine the power in that. For the administration to actually forge a direct connection with the population, without the intermediary slant of the news outlet, could create a most interesting shift in perspective.
2. Obviously, dialogue is a more effective form of communication than monologue. The new site seems to be striving for at least some form of give and take with its audience; the blog post offers viewers the chance to weigh in on the information they want to see and refers to the site as an "online community." And although it is listed under the Participation point, the policy of allowing the public to review and comment upon legislation prior to its signing is probably better categorized as communication. More on that shortly.

With regard to communication and my own homepage, I don't have so much to offer just yet, because I'm undecided on exactly what I want to communicate, to whom I want to communicate it to, and how I want them to interact. 

Transparency

Of the three points listed in the whitehouse.gov blog, I thought this was the weakest. There are several definitions listed for "transparent," but the ones that seemed most pertinent were a) manifest, obvious; and b) open, frank, candid. If we interpret transparent to mean any of these, then I am skeptical about not only this administration's, but any administration's, willingness or ability to adhere to that priority. I realize that transparent is a big word right now, both in government and industry, but still. No organization or individual with an agenda of any sort can afford to be truly transparent. Honest, yes; transparent, probably not. I'm sure that opinion will inform the design of my own home page as well.

Participation

I love the idea of participation in an online community, and I hope that whitehouse.gov finds good ways to create and foster that sort of environment. However, the example listed under the Participation point -- allowing viewers to see and comment on legislation before it is signed -- is a questionable one. I'm not sure that giving your opinion counts as participation unless that opinion is actually considered in the decision-making process. Perhaps we are meant to assume that this will be the case; and perhaps it actually will be the case. The message would be more powerful, though, if that detail were filled in.

The Participate link on the blog page leads to a brief blurb on the Office of Public Liaison and Intergovernmental Affairs, which plans to "bring new voices to the table, build relationships with constituents and seek to embody the essence of the President's movement for change through the meaningful engagement of citizens and their elected officials by the federal government." The only mechanism for engagement currently available is a Contact Us form, but the page promises that more methods are forthcoming.